Dr. Peter Ridd wins $1.2 million judgment – appeal possible

The court just announced that we have been awarded around $1.2 million (provisional on submissions).

This case was always about academic freedom.It was a fight that should never have started in the first place.

I have worked for 35 years on the Great Barrier Reef, and my genuinely held belief is that there are systemic quality assurance problems at GBR science institutions. I had a right, a duty, to say this. JCU have still not accepted this fundamental right despite the importance of the debate to the North Queensland region.

The case shows the importance of strong clauses in Enterprise Agreements that were negotiated by the union, and relied upon in court. It also shows the importance of the federal government’s initiatives, such as the French Review, to require universities to behave like universities. If JCU appeals it casts doubt that academic freedom is part of their DNA as they often insist.

An appeal will continue the huge and pointless legal costs. JCU admit to spending well over $600K, although we suspect their true costs are far higher. The legal costs to my wife and I is around $200K. This is on top of the $260K that was donated to us in the crowd funding campaign. Our intention is to re-donate the $260K to assist with science quality and academic freedom initiatives but this will have to wait until any appeal is finished. I should add that under the Fair Work Act each side usually pays their own legal fees.

As ever I am very grateful to those who supported this cause. JCU has three weeks to appeal. If they appeal, regrettably I will likely have to call upon this support again. Until any prospective appeal is finalised, we will not be in a position to access the court payout. My lawyers say it is a landmark case so it is imperative that we continue the fight if necessary.

I’d like to thank my excellent legal team Stuart Wood AM QC, Ben Jellis, Ben Kidston, Mitchell Downes and Amelia Hasson. Also, without the support of the IPA especially Jennifer Marohasy, John Roskam, Gideon Roezner and Matthew Lesh, this would not have been possible

Lastly and most importantly I’d like to thank my wife Cheryl. She suffered most but was always rock-solid in support.

I suggest that if JCU appeals, an ad campaign be launched to expose the misconduct of the administration, focused on stripping JCU of its alumni financial support.

If I were a grad of JCU, I’d never give them another dime in alumni donations – to date they have wasted about $2 million dollars on the truly vile oppression of Mr. Ridd, in blatant contravention of his rights to free speech and academic freedom. Those responsible should be fired for cause.

The Guardian as ever is wrong in its description of a real scientist, who is expert in his chosen field of study.
Peter Ridd along with all genuine scientists, believes in climate change. No true scientist ever advances any scepticism about the climate changing.
To refer to Peter Ridd as “The” climate change sceptic scientist, does not hide the obvious discomfort the Guardian is experiencing. They can’t hide their bitterness. A real academic has defeated, in court, the efforts of a discredited academic institution to silence him, along with the truth he holds.
Well done Peter, we stand ready to support you should the need arrive.

I am a genuine scientist, and, up to now, I believe that most (perhaps, all) of the actual climate change that has occurred in the last 150 years is natural. I did not think this was so 20 years ago, but I looked at the historical and current data, and kept an open mind, as all good scientists do. Reversing my previously held belief was mandatory. I also supported Peter Ridd, and will do so again.

First of all congrats to Dr. Ridd and hope, that if JCU appeals, the next stage will double the award.
As about “journalists” of today? Dumb doesn’t sound right — useful idiots would fare better, IMHO.

Loydo: Please contact the Administrator, it cut the bottom of your post. The part where you tell what you think of the merits of the case, and wonder if your AGW activist friends are properly handling university assets. Maybe the grauniad covers it?

In the articles trailing promo, trolling for donations the guardian states:

“…from the escalating climate catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.”

Any rag that would in the same breath declare an escalating climate catastrophe, while claiming to be a source of accurate reporting with integrity at its heart. Deserves to be debunked and dismantled. Yet there is a drone army of climate alarmists who cannot see the duplicity of that passage. Good God are these people stupid.

Thank you Peter. You have been strong and I do hope there is no appeal. This is bigger than simply climate change: it is as you write, very much about the intellectual freedom in university, even schools, that they are trying to stop.

Certain elements of JCU’s conduct in this case are beyond belief. Just two instances from the judgment:

“The [JCU] email criticised Professor Ridd for breaching directions that the Court had held were unlawful. It said that ‘in court, he admitted that he knew it was wrong, but did it anyway’. Such a statement is a blatant untruth. [emphasis mine] Frankly, for an institution that strives to graduate tomorrow’s leaders to engage in conduct of this sort is remarkable. It is a bad look and one that cannot be justified.

“134. Another untruth in the email was a statement that Professor Ridd ‘was never gagged or silenced about his scientific views, a matter which was admitted during the court hearing’. This was never admitted by Professor Ridd or his Counsel at trial.”

“Look at the facts of the world. You see a continual and progressive triumph of the right. I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice.” – Theodore Parker, 1853.

Again the JCU can only seek leave to appeal, there is a whole other step before an appeal. They may also be only given leave to appeal parts of the decision not the entire thing. Remember there are 13 separate findings.

There is no automatic right to appeal. Parties must seek permission to appeal. It is important to note that in the case of appeals against unfair dismissal and general protection arbitration decisions there are additional requirements in relation to permission to appeal.

For JCU that is probably $500K to seek leave to appeal, plus what another $600K to do the appeal and the success rate is less than 10%. As Peter noted none of that money is recoverable. I am betting JCU will pay the money and crawl and hide.

The judge was also very interested in making it hard for the appeal of either lesser monies or for reversals of his reasoning. He documented the excess of JCU then gave the middle of the monetary span to justify that he was neither treating the transgressions lightly, nor being vindictive in his assessments.

He also is apparently a good writer. The ruling is a hoot if you like such stuff.

It was almost a joy to read. I like this Judge Vesta, even when he was being scrupulously fair to JCU, who deserved none of it.

Given his commentary on the press release, I was surprised there was no direction to remove it and scrub it, as far as is possible, and to forbid them from continuing to state or insinuate that Dr Ridd has done anything wrong, upon pains of contempt of court charges, or similar.

Judge Vesta may not have had the power to require removal of the press release, given that this is not a ‘usual’ civil case, but an employer-employee hearing, within the boundaries of the employment contract.
It may be that he is restricted by the Act, in respect of the matters with which he could deal, and the ambit of his powers (see paragraph 2 of his first decision).
And of course, he could not order the removal as Professor Ridd did not claim that sort of relief in his claim ( since JCU had not at that time defamed him by declaring that he had admitted matters in court when he had not done so).
For the same reasons, Judge Vesta may have felt constrained to restrict his comments about the posting to its effect on the employment matter, and not treat is as a matter of contempt.
Judge Vesta was *extremely* careful to stay away from the actual locus of the matter: that Professor Ridd refused to comply with orders that he retract his scientific opinions. JCU then treated the refusal as misconduct requiring punishment.
If the situation is framed as a military matter, then Professor Ridd was court-martialed for refusing an Order to carry out a war crime. That the Order was illegal has been put aside: Judge Vesta only dealt with the procedural aspects of how the court martial was empaneled and conducted and whether Private Ridd was required to accept the orders of someone who was effectively not in his chain of command.

Maybe Professor Ridd should now send the University a libel ‘concerns’ letter, requesting the removal of the posting and a retraction of the statements about his ‘misconduct’ and his purported ‘threats’ made to his employer and his purported ‘misconduct’ in refusing to abide by the improper gag directions. To be followed on by a draft Statement of Claim, delivered on the day after the end of the indulgence period provided in the Act (28 days??) with a request for clarification of the University’s position at that point.
I am reasonably certain that he can find support for his costs in going forward. And with a civil claim, JCU will end up paying costs!

Fair enough, DC, and thanks for the additional perspective. Based on other observations within the Commonwealth court systems, I had assumed that Australian judges would be able to offer unilateral injuncitve relief and orders from the bench, especially in the case of obviously-fraudulent statements involving his own court. I just can’t believe that JCU would be so egregiously, um, insensitive? to have published such easily-refuted commentary into the public sphere. It beggars the imagination as to what these folk use for their cognitive processes.

Great news for Peter Ridd .The initial verdict that Peter Ridd had won his court case never made it to any news
paper or TV news slot here in New Zealand.
I will be looking for coverage this time but our left leaning news is very biased about any subjects to do with climate change .I doubt that it will rate a mention .
Graham

media watch did a hatchet job on Peter I gather
I dont have a TV so have no other info
but friends have written to complain to aunty
THE most biased “unbiased reporting” on climate..well gruniad lockstep maybe?

Media Watch is everything that is wrong with the ABC, squeezed into 15 insufferable minutes.
Smug, elitist ….
Media Watch even repeated hysterical comparisons between Ridd’s research and anti-vaxxer campaigns.
…. reduced to a tired pantomime about right-wing commentators pushing the views of one scientist to advance their own murky climate agenda.

If JCU appeals it casts doubt that academic freedom is part of their DNA as they often insist.

They will insist that they support academic freedom but then saddle it with restrictions that make it meaningless. It reminds me of a free speech case where the defense quipped something like: “Freedom of speech has to mean something more than the mere right to soliloquy.” (Sorry, I can’t find a link.)

I still do not think that is sufficient to cover the pain and mental torture that they put you through. Also the fact that they have to all in purposes made you unemployable. This should not just reflect what they have done now but include covering everything for the rest of your life.

The Judge was scathing of JCU’s conduct and apparently ongoing conduct.

The VC, Professor Sandra Cocklin (now there’s an apt name ! ) should now resign to save the university further disrepute. I wonder if major donors and federal government (tax payers) will apply pressure ?

Why not take a look at the publications of Sandra Harding. link This woman is pure unbridled social justice warrior (SJW). JCU knew what she was and should have anticipated trouble. Appointing her looks seriously negligent to me.

It is a diatribe against maps having north at the top and the inequity of the Mercator projection, and it nicely shows her consummate mastery of postmodern jargon and bottomless ignorance of everything else (for example she clearly has no idea of the original meaning of the word “arctic”).

The popularity of the Mercator projection by the way is not due to white nordic chauvinism but to its unique property that a line between two points automatically yields the correct course to steer between them.

And astronomers must be exceptionally woke and PC since planetary (and moon) maps have always had south at the top.

“For example, it [Mercator] magnifies Greenland to be approximately the same size as Africa, which is actually fourteen times larger. The Greenland example is one of many northern amplifications and conceits that belittle the south…..The slag heaps of Orwell’s north have long since been dressed with turf and lawn, the chimneys have ceased spewing out noxious sulphur dioxide”

She tries to act like a scholar, but knows but little about cartography and the history of why plane geometry has problems with spheres. She dislikes “sub”, claiming “…literally meaning below north.”

She probably mistakes gender for sex, or versa-visa and has little appreciation for the ‘sub’ prefix. Like ‘substantive right’ defined as the right (as of life, liberty, property, or representation) held to exist for its own sake and to constitute part of the normal legal order of society. Of course, that definition came from an old dictionary. (2001).

In our institution, we are sometimes asked by other universities to comment on CVs for promotion at their institution. One of the questions is often “Would this person have been promoted at your institution?” Our institution has pretty strict guidelines, which take into account not only publication records, but also other factors. Sometimes a technical report (i.e. a non-peer-reviewed report published by the university or other institution) should count, for reasons I won’t go into here.

But in her case, I think I’d have to say no, she would have been promoted. As you say, four articles, one in a journal that published seven small volumes before folding (more to say about this below). She is fourth of four authors in one article, and second of two in another. We require a minimum of ten articles (including book chapters etc.). I confess to not having read all five of her documents, just their abstracts, but I’d be hard pressed to say that hers are substantive.

About the Journal of Tropical Psychology: Her article in this journal is only four pages, which is rather short for a journal article (it’s even short for a conference paper). I think the reason it was published at all is that she was in with the editor. Quoting from the “Editorial” by the editor in the first volume, “Special recognition in the formation of this journal should go to Vice-Chancellor and President Sandra Harding (our journal’s muse) of Australia’s James Cook University for her vision.” (Link to the editorial at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-tropical-psychology.)

The thrust of the journal was clear; I’ll quote from the closing editorial: “Our tropical focus on what was once only a piece of global geography increasingly applies to our entire overheating planet, an Earth now that, when seen from space, glows with a hot golden aura from the exponential impact of climate change.” Bizarre.

yes yes yes – thank goodness there are still good, fair-minded, honest, intelligent, resilient people in the world such as Peter, his wife, the financial backers/campaigners, the legal fraternity – this gives one hope and hopefully no more of Australian taxes will be wasted on this – I’m Aussie and proud that this positive outcome happened here but sad that there are still so many uninformed and easily lead and unfortunately ignorant zealots in the world – but unfortunately that’s part of human nature.
it’s great to take heart when the TRUTH AND JUSTICE PREVAILS

Has anyone among Mr Ridd’s false accusers been sacked, or disciplined in any way? Has any meaningful inquiry into the conduct of JCU been instigated? Is Mr Ridd likely to ever work again in his field of expertise and passion? Indeed, is he likely to ever be re-employed anywhere in Academia — apart from some obscure fringe facility? Is there any reason to expect that the quality of research conducted at JCU will improve as a result of this case?

It will be interesting to revisit this scene a year after the legal dust has settled. We shall then see who is still standing and who has been swept away to impotent irrelevance.

Tertiary educational institutions are now run so that academics have ‘skin in the game’ and must tailor their research and published opinions to whatever rewards them best. While this model continues, so will routine academic prostitution. Climate Science is by no means alone in this predicament. To view this as some kind of LEFT WING creation requires the wearing of glasses even more heavily distorted than those evidently worn by Theodore Parker.

Anyone now or in the future considering becoming a benefactor—or continuing contributions—to JCU should bail out of this despicable institution. It does not merit the title “institution of higher learning.”

THAT is one of the most direct ways to punish the institution, and thereby its governing administration and guilty professors, that brought this judgment onto themselves. I do feel some sympathy for the innocent people (students, professors and university staff) that would be “collateral damage” under such action, but there appear to be many better places to study and work than JCU.

AU$940,000?!!!!!! Yeah, she is not going anywhere. The other “benefit” not listed at that link is superannuation. It’s compulsory in Australia and is a minimum 9.5% deduction from your “salary” package. Many Aussies believe it’s the employer that pays it, well they do, they just deduct it from your package and pay it in to your fund, so it is “your” money. Many Universities go one better (Because the taxpayer pays it) with “deductions” of up to 19%. So, yeah, she isn’t going anywhere at all.

“145.
Professor Ridd has been painted as “non-collegiate”, “recalcitrant” and even “dishonest”. None of these are attributes that can be seen in this man. He has been ostracized from the academic community and accused
of “serious misconduct” and was deliberately made to feel isolated via the making of unlawful directions as to confidentiality.

146.
Then, when he took these matters to Court (as he was, in fact, challenged to do by JCU in their press release of May 2018) and was successful, the university did what it could to undermine the decision of the Court and deprive Professor Ridd of “the fruits of his victory”. It then further attempted to blacken his name.”

Is there some climate-change Quisling in JCU’s maladministration egging them on to disaster upon disaster, some secret supporter of Dr. Ridd? No other explanation seems possible, for no sane person would inflict such self-harm on themselves or their institution.

The world is growing a bitter divide between the groupthink PC “consensus” and the individual investigative, quality assured thinkers.

Grouthink is the ideology of every single terror regime from Hitler to Mao, from Isis to the IRA. It recruits on the basis that you are either with us … or the enemy. It hates diversity, it hates people who can think, it hates … well it just hates.

Individualism, is an ideology that respects diversity, which believes in freedom of speech particularly for views we disagree with and sees no individual as our enemy, the enemy is the consensus groups that delude them.

Hitler (the National Socialist) got to power through the big lie, through the delusion of the masses, by finding an “enemy” in the jews to attack. The climate cult is from the same stable. It is based on one enormous lie of catastrophic cliamte change, it uses the press to delude the masses, and its intentionally constructs a totally bogus “enemy” in the form of the “fossil fuel funded climate deniers”.

Hitler first took over the media, then he took over the courts and then he destoyed Europe in a totally senseless action. At least this judgement shows that the groupthink climate cult haven’t (yet) taken over the courts.

Well done Peter – you must be so pleased with what the Judge said about you!

“Pofessor Ridd has given evidence before me on two occasions. I have
found him to be scrupulously honest. He is a person who does not make
statements lightly and there is genuine conviction in what he says. The
passion he has for his work and for the Great Barrier Reef is plain for all
to see.
144. There is no malice or vindictiveness in Professor Ridd’s manner. He has
sought to debate matters of public significance via a legitimate true
scientific process where ideas are matched against each other in the
search for truth. This is at the heart of intellectual freedom. That freedom
is all that Professor Ridd has ever sought to exercise. He would have
continued to do so but for the myopic and unjustified actions of his
lifelong employer.”

If the Australian court system of jurisprudence is anything like the one we have
in the United States, any appeal by JCU of part or all of Judge Vasta’s ruling inRIDD v JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY (No.2) will begin to set tangible legal
precedents for other Aussie public/private employers in general and the
universities in particular.

Assuming an appeal by JCU is permitted,”academic freedom” will not be
the only issue impacted.

excellent news for Peter Ridd and the Missus;-)
we can hope the JCU mob know when to stfu n cut their losses in money and reputation
wait n see on that. I dont rate their combined IQs very highly with what we’ve seen so far
meantime Scomos got some climate related committees to get underway so Peter should be eminently qualified for that, far more so than the self created climate council started by flimflam and besties, who will push for places
as will the turkey turney now hes managed a posh job n payrise on the back of his epic disaster down sth;-(

Yes, he is. I say this because he has proven himself to follow the data. If the reef were indeed in bad condition and the data supported that conclusion, he would state so frankly and without overstatement. If it is in good condition as most suspect, he would say so. Finally, if it is in overall good condition, but there are areas that are being adversely impacted he would give a full account of the damage and causes, and create a suite of recommendations for mitigation including the secondary impacts of each.

Warmist congratulations to Peter Ridd. The “University” that mistreated him should be thoroughly ashamed of itself. This is a sterling victory for academic freedom against the narrow-minded totalitarians who have captured the universities of the West.

Leftists always manage to use our own money against us in this very clever Climate fraud (and on most other battle fronts). It’s over $Trillion and counting. They have their sights on a couple $100Trillion…and control of Western political institutions.

EVERYTHING is at stake here.

The legal fees for the criminal professors and administrators at JCU are not being born by those criminals. JCU might suffer some, but the criminals will ultimately get off scott free.

Dr. Ridd must win this small battle…in this unending and bigger war against the enemies of individual freedom.

And hopefully this court case will awaken enough voters in the west to slow the momentum of the International Socialists in their fraudulent Climate Crusade.

The loss of the sacred fundamental institutional principles of free speech and academic freedoms and the free exchange of ideas IS A LINE THAT MUST BE DRAWN in the sand. Most of the leftists in Science and Academia and the Press have sold out on these fundamental freedoms. And so far they have not paid the price for this transgression. Wars have been fought over far less grievous crimes.

As usual, the Guardian is playing fast and loose with the facts. Here is the actual sentence the are referring to:

“Despite his best endeavours, however, it is difficult to shake the feeling that because of this litigation, Professor Ridd will be seen as “damaged goods” and will continue to pay a heavy price for that stereotype.”

This was in the section where the Judge was attempting to decide if Professor Ridd had made a real effort to find employment and whether he would be able to find any in the future. This goes to deciding how much the University has to pay for future losses.

I found in reading the judgement that the demands of confidentiality (a ‘gag order’) by the university to be particularly egregious, both in issuing them in the first place, and then in claiming that contravention of them was a serious breach of conduct. Such behavior prompted me to look up the history of Star Chamber proceedings, and is so completely unexpected of a university. The entire issue has a hint of someone at the university having an ‘I’ve taken down bigger men than you, Picard’ attitude.

I’m betting they will appeal. Grind the lesser funded side into legal dust.
Justice is on the side with the more lawyers and all.
It shouldn’t be this way, but that’s the sorry way it is.
Will contribute to Dr. Ridd again if necessary, don’t give up the ship.

Here’s another good one from the judgement:
“Professor Ridd was even more humiliated when JCU decided to trawl through all of the emails that he had both sent and received on his university email account. There was simply no call for such draconian action. There was no evidence that JCU routinely did this form of audit on all persons who have JCU email accounts. To do so here borders on paranoia and hysteria fuelled by systemic vindictiveness.”

Heartfelt congratulations, Dr. Ridd!
May the politics of personal zealotry by the AGW fanatics ever be so punished and the sustainers of integrity and honesty like you and your family ever be so rewarded. Justice is served.

It is good to see a fair judgment. However, justice delayed is justice denied. An appeal by JCU will greatly delay settlement and compound the damages to both Professor Ridd and the reputation of the university while being extremely unlikely to overturn the multiple findings of illegal actions by JCU. It is clearly the duty of the University Council to now intervene and impose a prompt settlement plus the sacking of those responsible. To fail to act decisively at this point would be to become complicit with this gross malfeasance and invite further legal action against the Council itself.

Congratulations to Professor Ridd, and well played for having the cojones to take them on.
Above, the complaint about the comment in the Guardian article about Ridd now being damaged goods actually works to his advantage in terms of the settlement sum. If he has been damaged he requires more compensation.

New : The death of inshore corals near Bowen has been greatly exaggerated, according to a forthcoming IPA documentary.previewed in the AustralianThe death of inshore corals near Bowen had been greatly exaggerated,
according to findings of rebel quality assurance survey by reef-science outsiders Peter Ridd and Jennifer Marohasy.
“What we saw was not consistent with the proposition that the inshore reefs have been destroyed by farm run-off”

Would be nice to see a list of names and their positions at the Uni, and also the names and company affiliations of their legal team. Would also be lovely to see the invoices from said legal companies.

Did the judgement come on Thursday ?
cos by Friday the local TV station tweeted
“.@jcu has *confirmed* it’ll appeal a Federal Court decision
ordering the university to pay Dr Peter Ridd $1.2 million dollars
for unlawful dismissal, after he publicly criticised colleagues climate change science. ”
@7NewsTownsville #7NEWShttps://twitter.com/Ben_Downie/status/1169830098129715201

IS CNN going to last till the earth ends in 11 years . Nah …going going gone .
How do you screw things up that bad ?
Isn’t it nice to have shareholders that don’t mind burning cash ? Who’s the sugar daddy ?

First reading of Dr Ridd’s desire to leave some funds aside for the use of others, rather himself,it seems that the court may have erred in its calculation of Future Economic Loss.
The flaw is in the starting paragraph 26 ‘Decide the period that should be covered by future economic loss.’
Further the decision in Paragraph 33 is to be procedurally fair,to only allow what Dr Ridd claimed for in lost work.
However, by doing this, the court fails to identify a major head of compensation, ie Opportunity Cost.
In Dr Ridd’s case this would be what he would have achieved during his last years at JCU and subsequently as an Internationally respected scientist, were he not embroiled in this conflicted situation.
In para 53 its true he ‘could not set up a private consulting business’ without the ‘proper ‘equipment’
However that loss is not caused by him.
JCU has effectively placed him in ‘internal exile’, by denying him the tools necessary to start such a transition.
Were he on good terms, and in the interest of scientific endeavour and reef science itself, an accommodating JCU would invite him to share facilities and promote the university.
I think back to my late, great accountant who was senior lecturer in economics at a sandstone university.
Well into his eighties he was still reviewing work,giving guest lectures and being invited to international symposia to give key advice on the then troubled economic times.
The adult in the room.
By besmirching his name, [para 84], JCU has prevented Dr Ridd from exploring such avenues within JCU under an enlightened administration, while ensuring he will stop his research elsewhere.
Para 33 is very generous to JCU.
Despite Dr Ridd’s stated intentions his future employment itself may well have been longer.
The Federal Government has already moved the goalposts to a retirement age of 65.5 years, with the expectation of future incentives to keep the ‘aged’ working, such as super breaks and incrementally biennial delayed dates for retirement.
Its not up to him entirely.

There are reasons that become apparent to us all as we age, that work is health giving for many, particularly directed, capable and committed scientists who enjoy their work and challenge the geist to strive for better.https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/working-later-in-life-can-pay-off-in-more-than-just-income
Were there trust in his relationship with JCU he arguably would be working long and happily adding lustre to the Establishment.cf para 99.
But for that trust and freedom, {cf 99,105} he lost an opportunity to work long and happily both within and externally to JCU beyond some arbitrary age, preselected by regulation and current volition.
Just because he does not ask for this does not mean it is not a valid head of compensation.
Since this is a test case, and JCU are bent on appeal, this added head of compensation should be researched, claimed and allowed for in any future determination.
His most productive life is now and the next ten years.
Which brings me back to my first point.
Dr Ridd is a generous person.
He would have contributed,so worked on beyond retirement age, were he given opportunity.
This cost must be reckoned.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy